Francisco J. Ruiz, Paula Odriozola-González and Juan C.
Suárez-Falcón
Psicothema 2014, Vol. 26, No. 3, 308-313
doi: 10.7334/psicothema2013.221
The Spanish version of the Believability of Anxious Feelings
and Thoughts Questionnaire
Francisco J. Ruiz1, Paula Odriozola-González2 and Juan C. Suárez-Falcón3
1
Universidad de Zaragoza, 2 Universidad de Oviedo and 3 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)
Abstract
Background: Cognitive fusion is suggested to play an important
role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety disorders according
to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. This study presents the
psychometric data of the Spanish version of a cognitive fusion measure
in the context of anxiety: the Believability of Anxious Feelings and
Thoughts Questionnaire (BAFT). Method: First, we back-translated the
BAFT into Spanish and then, administered it to three samples, with a
total of 598 participants, in addition to other relevant anxiety measures.
Results: Data were very similar to those obtained with the original BAFT
version. The BAFT showed a very good internal consistency (overall α
= .92) and a hierarchical factor structure with two lower-order factors
and one hierarchical factor. Participants showing mild levels of anxiety
symptoms scored higher on the BAFT than participants who scored below
the cutoffs. BAFT scores were significantly related to anxiety symptoms
and to measures of psychological inflexibility, anxiety sensitivity, and
mindfulness facets. Moreover, the BAFT showed incremental validity
relative to anxiety sensitivity. Conclusions: This Spanish version of the
BAFT emerges as a reliable and valid measure of cognitive fusion with
anxious thoughts and feelings.
Keywords: Believability of Anxious Feelings and Thoughts Questionnaire,
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, cognitive fusion, anxiety
disorders.
Cognitive fusion is a central process of the Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy (ACT; Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999)
model of psychopathology and, more specifically, of anxiety
disorders. Cognitive fusion refers to a verbal process by which
individuals become attached to private experiences (e.g., thoughts,
memories, sensations, etc.) and fail to discriminate that they are
only ongoing experiences that do not necessarily have to guide
behavior. Therefore, when individuals are fused with their private
experiences, they tend to act according to their literal content,
Received: July 13, 2013 • Accepted: February 13, 2014
Corresponding author: Francisco J. Ruiz
Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas
Universidad de Zaragoza
44003 Teruel (Spain)
e-mail: franruiz@unizar.es
308
ISSN 0214 - 9915 CODEN PSOTEG
Copyright © 2014 Psicothema
www.psicothema.com
Resumen
Versión española del Cuestionario de Credibilidad de Sentimientos y
Pensamientos Ansiógenos. Antecedentes: la fusión cognitiva juega un
papel importante en la etiología y mantenimiento de los trastornos de
ansiedad según la Terapia de Aceptación y Compromiso. Este estudio
presenta datos psicométricos de la versión española del Cuestionario
de Credibilidad de Sentimientos y Pensamientos Ansiógenos (BAFT).
Método: se realizó una traducción inversa del BAFT al español
y se administró a tres muestras, con un total de 598 participantes,
conjuntamente con otras medidas de ansiedad. Resultados: los datos
fueron muy similares a los obtenidos en la versión original del BAFT.
El BAFT mostró una muy buena consistencia interna (alfa promedio de
.92) y una estructura jerárquica con dos factores de primer orden y un
factor de segundo orden. Los participantes con niveles moderados de
ansiedad puntuaron más en el BAFT que los participantes que mostraron
puntuaciones inferiores. Las puntuaciones en el BAFT correlacionaron
significativamente con variedad de síntomas de ansiedad y con medidas
de inflexibilidad psicológica, sensibilidad a la ansiedad y facetas de
mindfulness. El BAFT mostró validez incremental en relación a la
sensibilidad a la ansiedad. Conclusiones: la versión española del
BAFT emerge como una medida fiable y válida de fusión cognitiva con
pensamientos y sentimientos ansiógenos.
Palabras clave: Cuestionario de Credibilidad de Sentimientos y
Pensamientos Ansiógenos, Terapia de Aceptación y Compromiso, fusión
cognitiva, trastornos de ansiedad.
which usually leads to engaging in experiential avoidance strategies
(e.g., suppression, distraction, worry, rumination, etc.) when these
experiences have aversive functions.
For instance, consider the case of Generalized Anxiety Disorder
(GAD). Individuals diagnosed with this disorder tend to get fused
with uncertain thoughts about the future (e.g., “what-if thoughts”)
without discriminating that they are just psychological experiences
and, thus, they do not need to react to them in a particular way.
When this happens, individuals with GAD usually react by rigidly
applying experiential avoidance strategies (e.g., worry) that are
useful in the short term because they usually lead to immediate
reduction of these aversive experiences, but are ineffective in the
long term because the “what-if thoughts” are typically extended,
provoking further cognitive fusion with them, and engagement
with worry. Even worse, worry itself usually becomes a source of
suffering, and individuals fused with it react by applying further
 The Spanish version of the Believability of Anxious Feelings and Thoughts Questionnaire
experiential avoidance strategies (e.g., suppression, distraction,
etc.). In conclusion, cognitive fusion both with “what-if thoughts”
and worry is a central aspect of GAD because it prevents individuals
from acknowledging that such thoughts are only psychological
experiences and that they can choose to behave according to those
experiences (i.e., inflexibly engaging in experiential avoidance
strategies) or according to what is important for them in the long
term (i.e., goals and values).
As seen in the previous example, cognitive fusion plays an
important role in anxiety disorders because, when individuals do
not have the skills to distance themselves from anxious thoughts
and feelings and to behave under the control of what is important for
them (i.e., cognitive defusion and values processes), they usually
get trapped in the experiential avoidance loops that characterize
these disorders (e.g., Luciano, Valdivia-Salas, & Ruiz, 2012).
Indeed, psychological interventions aimed at developing cognitive
defusion skills, such as ACT, are proving to be effective in the
treatment of anxiety disorders (see reviews in Hayes, Luoma,
Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006; Ruiz, 2012). Furthermore, a couple
of recent studies have shown that traditional cognitive behavioral
therapy may also work by promoting cognitive defusion (Arch,
Wolitzky-Taylor, Eifert, & Craske, 2012; Forman, Chapman,
Herbert, Goetter, Yuen, & Moitra, 2012) although this is not a main
aim of the treatment.
In accordance with the relevance of analyzing the role of
cognitive fusion in anxiety disorders, Herzberg, Sheppard, Forsyth,
Credé, Earleywine, and Eifert (2012) have recently developed a
self-report measure of this construct: the Believability of Anxious
Feelings and Thoughts Questionnaire (BAFT). The BAFT was
designed to measure cognitive fusion with anxious thoughts and
feelings and has shown excellent internal consistency both in
undergraduate and highly anxious samples. A hierarchical factor
structure with three lower order factors (somatic concerns, emotion
regulation, and negative evaluation) and one hierarchical factor
was found as the most adequate fit for the BAFT structure. The
BAFT also showed strong construct validity with other process
and outcome measures, incremental validity in relation to anxiety
sensitivity, strong test-retest reliability after twelve weeks, and
responsiveness to treatment in several studies (e.g., Arch et al.,
2012; Herzberg et al., 2012). In conclusion, the BAFT has been
shown to be a reliable and valid measure of cognitive fusion with
anxiety experiences.
The current study aimed to analyze the psychometric properties
of the Spanish version of the BAFT with three samples from
independent studies (total N = 598).
Method
Participants
Sample 1. Participants in this sample were 105 undergraduate
labor science students from the south of Spain (74.3% females),
with an age range of 19 to 48 years (M = 23.17, SD = 4.41).
They responded to a packet of questionnaires in their respective
classrooms.
Sample 2. This sample consisted of 204 participants from the
south of Spain, with age ranging between 18 and 68 years (M =
30.4, SD = 10.86). Sixty-one percent were females. The relative
educational level of the participants was as follows: 14.1% primary
studies, 27.2% mid-level study graduates, 22.8% undergraduate
students, and 35.9% were college graduates. They were recruited
from undergraduate students and personal contacts.
Sample 3. The sample consisted of 289 participants (59.5%
females) with age ranging between 22 and 82 years (M = 35.38,
SD = 8.63). The relative educational level of the participants
was: 7.3% primary studies, 32.8% mid-level study graduates, and
59.9% were college graduates. They responded to an anonymous
internet survey distributed through social media. All of them were
Spanish speakers. Thirty-six percent reported having received
psychological or psychiatric treatment at some time, but only 6.6%
were currently in treatment. Also, 4.8% of participants reported
consumption of some psychotropic medication.
Instruments
Believability of Anxious Feelings and Thoughts Questionnaire
(BAFT; Herzberg et al., 2012). The BAFT is a self-report measure
of cognitive fusion with anxious thoughts and feelings. It consists
of 16 items representing different thoughts which are rated on a
7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all believable) to 7
(completely believable) to the extent that the individual believes in
them. A hierarchical factor structure of the BAFT with three lower
order factors and one hierarchical factor was found. The three lower
order factors were labeled Somatic Concerns (fusion with somatic
concerns: items 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12), Emotion Regulation (fusion
with excessive struggle with and control of emotions: items 4, 13,
14, 15, and 16), and Negative Evaluation (fusion with negative
evaluation of anxious thoughts and feelings: items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and
7). The internal consistency of the total BAFT score was excellent
(.90 and .91 for the undergraduate and highly anxious samples,
respectively) and adequate for its subscales.
Acceptance and Action Questionnaire - II (AAQ-II; Bond et
al., 2011). The AAQ-II is a 7-item 7-point Likert-type measure
of experiential avoidance/psychological inflexibility. The items
reflect: (a) unwillingness to experience unwanted emotions and
thoughts, and (b) the inability to be in the present moment and
behave according to value-directed actions when experiencing
unwanted psychological events. We used the Spanish version by
Ruiz, Langer, Luciano, Cangas, and Beltrán (2013), which has
shown good psychometric properties (mean alpha of .88).
Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer, Miller,
Metzeger, & Borkovec, 1990). The PSWQ is a 16-item 5-point
Likert-type self-report instrument that was designed for evaluating
the permanent and unspecific degree of worry that characterizes
GAD. PSWQ internal consistency is high, within an alpha range
between .93 and .95, and it shows good test-retest reliability and
discriminant validity. We administered the Spanish version by
Sandín, Chorot, Valiente, and Lostao (2009), which showed similar
properties to the original PSWQ version.
Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI; Peterson & Reiss, 1992). The
ASI is a 16-item, 5-point Likert-type scale that aims to measure
the fear of experiencing anxiety symptoms. Anxiety sensitivity is a
central aspect of the anxiety expectancy theory and was proposed
as a predisposing factor for developing anxiety disorders. The
Spanish version of the ASI has good psychometric properties in
clinical and normal populations, an adequate factor structure and
convergent and discriminant validity (e.g., Sandín, Chorot, &
McNally, 2001).
Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer, Smith,
Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006). The FFMQ is a 39-item,
309
 Francisco J. Ruiz, Paula Odriozola-González and Juan C. Suárez-Falcón
5-point Likert-type scale that assesses the following five facets
of mindfulness: observing, describing, acting with awareness,
nonjudging of inner experience, and nonreactivity to inner
experience. We used the Spanish version by Cebolla, García-
Palacios, Soler, Guillen, Baños, and Botella (2012), which
has shown good internal consistency (alphas from .81 to .91),
convergent validity, and the same factor structure as the original
FFMQ.
Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30; Wells &
Cartwright-Hatton, 2004). The MCQ-30 is a short version of the
MCQ-65. It is a 30-item, 4-point Likert-type scale that contains
the following five factors: Positive Beliefs about Worry, Negative
Beliefs about Uncontrollability and Danger of Worry, Beliefs
about the Need to Control Thoughts, Cognitive Confidence,
and Cognitive Self-Consciousness. Only the first three factors
were administered in this study. The MCQ-30 has shown good
internal consistency, convergent validity, and acceptable test-retest
reliability. We used the Spanish version employed by Odriozola-
González (2011), which showed good internal consistency in the
subscales administered in the current study (alphas from .78 to
.84).
Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck & Steer, 1990). The BAI
is a widely used self-report measure of anxious symptomatology.
It is a 21-item, 4-point Likert-type scale, with each item reflecting
an anxiety symptom. Numerous psychometric studies warrant
its reliability and validity. We used the Spanish version by Sanz
and Navarro (2003), which has shown adequate reliability (alpha
of .93) and validity concerning its content, factor structure and
discriminant ability.
Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21; Antony,
Bieling, Cox, Enns, & Swinson, 1998). The DASS-21 is a 21-
item, 4-point Likert-type scale consisting of sentences describing
negative emotional states. It contains three subscales (Depression,
Anxiety, and Stress) and has shown good internal consistency and
convergent and discriminant validity. We used the Spanish version
by Daza, Novy, Stanley, and Averill (2002), which has shown good
psychometric properties (alphas of the subscales from .73 to .81)
(Fonseca-Pedrero, Paino, Lemos-Giráldez, & Muñiz, 2010).
Procedure
We translated the BAFT into Spanish following the
recommendations proposed by Muñiz and Hambleton (1996).
Thus, we selected two translators, one familiar with the Spanish
culture and another familiar with that of the USA, and used the
“back-translation” method; that is, the first translator translated the
questionnaire into Spanish, and this translation was then translated
back into English by the second one (see items translation in Table
1). Then, the minimal discrepancies between both translations
were resolved by the authors of the study as experts in ACT. Lastly,
we administered the BAFT to five people in order to analyze the
understanding of the items.
Participants were recruited as described above. Individuals
who provided informed consent were given a questionnaire packet
including some instruments. Specifically, both the BAFT and
AAQ-II were administered to all samples; the PSWQ, BAI, and
FFMQ were applied to Sample 1; the DASS-21 to Sample 2 and 3;
the ASI to Samples 1 and 2, and the MCQ-30 to Sample 3. Upon
completion of the study, participants were debriefed about the aims
of the study and thanked for their participation.
310
Data analysis
Factor analyses were computed with Factor 9.2© (Lorenzo-
Seva & Ferrando, 2006) while the remaining data analyses were
conducted with SPSS 17.0©. First, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index
and the Bartlett sphericity test were computed to determine
whether the data as a whole were apt for conducting factor
analyses. Subsequently, an exploratory maximum likelihood factor
analysis with direct oblimin rotation was conducted to allow for
correlations between the factors. The number of factors extracted
was determined according to a parallel analysis (Hayton, Allen, &
Scarpello, 2004). Second, as in Herzberg et al. (2012), the Schmid-
Leiman transformation (Schmid & Leiman, 1957) was computed
to assess the presence of a higher order factor. This statistical
procedure performs a secondary exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
using the latent factor intercorrelations obtained from the previous
EFA. Additionally, the syntax developed by Wolf and Preising
(2005) for SPSS was used to compute the total extracted variance
accounted for the higher order factor. Third, an internal replication
analysis of the exploratory factor analysis was conducted according
to guidelines proposed by Osborne and Fitzpatrick (2012). For this
purpose, the whole data set was split into two samples via random
assignment using SPSS 17 and their factor loadings and structures
were compared using Factor 9.2. To claim for strong replication:
(a) the basic structure should be the same, (b) the items should be
grouped in the same factors, and (c) the factor loadings should be
roughly equivalent in magnitude (with squared differences below
the cutoff of .04). Fourth, Cronbach’s alphas were computed to
explore the internal consistency of the BAFT providing confidence
intervals that were computed according to Duhachek and Iacobucci
(2004). Descriptive data were also calculated, and scores on
the BAFT were compared, computing Student’s t, between
participants with scores above and below the cutoffs on the BAI,
PSWQ (Sample 1), and DASS-21 (Samples 2 and 3). Fifth, zero-
order correlations between the BAFT and the other scales were
computed. Lastly, incremental validity of the BAFT in relation to
anxiety sensitivity was analyzed by computing partial correlations
with other relevant constructs after controlling for the ASI.
Results
Factor structure
Data were apt for conducting a factor analysis according to the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index (.92) and the Bartlett sphericity test (χ2
= 5035.6, p<.0001). Table 1 shows that two factors were extracted
according to the parallel analysis, accounting for 56.4% of the
variance. The first factor represented twelve items and was labeled
Negative Evaluation. It contained all items from the Somatic
Concerns and Negative Evaluation subscales of the original BAFT
version plus one item from the original Emotion Regulation
subscale. The second factor consisted of four of the five items from
the original Emotion Regulation subscale. Scores on both factors
were highly correlated with each other (r = .54) and with the BAFT
total score (r = .96 and .76, respectively).
Table 1 also shows the loadings of individual items onto the
general factor after conducting the Schimd-Leiman transformation.
All items seemed to represent the general factor because they
showed loadings above .30 (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 2007). This
general factor accounted for 52% of the variance, a proportion
 The Spanish version of the Believability of Anxious Feelings and Thoughts Questionnaire

Table 1
Factor loadings from Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis (MLFA), loadings of the General Factor according to the Schmid-Leiman transformation, alpha values, means
scores and standard deviations of each factor

Factor loadings Schmid-Leiman

BAFT item from MLFA transformation

1 2 General Factor

Negative evaluation
1. Necesito conseguir manejar mi ansiedad y miedo para tener la vida que quiero [I need to get a handle on my anxiety and fear for me to have the .63 .08 .46
life I want]
2. Mostrarse nervioso no es bueno y me causa sufrimiento [Appearing nervous is not good and causes me to suffer] .58 .19 .52
3. Realmente no puedo hacer las cosas que quiero hacer cuando tengo ansiedad y miedo [I can’t really do the things that I want to do when I have .58 .23 .56
anxiety and fear]
5. Si fuera como otras personas, sería capaz de mantener el control de mis pensamientos y sensaciones ansiosas [If I were like other people, I would .70 -.03 .40
be able to get a grip on my anxious thoughts and feelings]
6. Mis pensamientos y sensaciones ansiosas son un problema [My anxious thoughts and feelings are a problem] .78 .04 .51
7. Estoy seguro de que me sentiré avergonzado y de que haré el ridículo cuando la gente se dé cuenta de lo nervioso e inseguro que me siento [I am .77 -.06 .42
sure to be embarrassed and make a fool of myself when other people notice how nervous and shaky I feel]
8. Las sensaciones corporales poco habituales me asustan y necesito hacer algo para reducirlas o librarme de ellas antes de hacer cualquier otra cosa .73 -.01 .44
[Unusual body sensations are scary and something I need to act on to reduce or get rid of before I can do anything else]
9. Mis pensamientos y sensaciones ansiosas no son normales [My anxious thoughts and feelings are not normal] .80 -.13 .38
10. Es importante inspeccionar mi cuerpo en busca de signos y síntomas de ansiedad para sentirme seguro [Scanning my body for signs and .68 -.10 .33
symptoms of anxiety is important to keep me safe]
11. Cuando estoy muy ansioso o asustado tengo la sensación de que pudiera estar muriéndome [When I am very anxious or afraid there is a good .56 -.02 .33
chance that I might be dying]
12. Podría llegar a perder el control cuando me siento ansioso o asustado [I could lose control of myself when I feel anxious or afraid] .57 .07 .42
13. Debo hacer algo con mi ansiedad o miedo cuando aparece [I must do something about my anxiety or fear when it shows up] .54 .29 .58

Emotion regulation
4. Debo mantener el control de mis emociones [I must stay in control of my emotions] .35 .41 .57
14. Cuando tengo pensamientos desagradables, debo sacarlos de mi mente [When unpleasant thoughts occur, I must push them out of my mind] .02 .83 .74
15. Cuando me siento mal debo luchar contra ese sentimiento para hacer que se vaya [When I feel bad, I must fight the feeling in order to make it .01 .85 .75
go away]
16. Mi felicidad y éxito dependen de lo bien que yo me sienta [My happiness and success depends on how good I feel] -.04 .65 .55

Alpha coefficient .91 .81

Scale mean 35.0 18.4
Scale SD 15.3 6.0

above the range considered as indicative of the presence of a Additionally, participants receiving psychological/psychiatric
general factor (40%-50%; Gorsuch, 1983). treatment in Sample 3 showed higher scores on the BAFT than
In the internal replication analysis, a strong replication was those who were not receiving it.
found because the two random samples had the same basic factor
structures, the items were grouped in the same factors, and the Zero-order correlations with other related constructs
factor loadings were roughly equivalent in magnitude (the higher
squared difference was .017). The overall BAFT score was correlated with all other assessed
constructs in theoretically coherent ways (see Table 4). Specifically,
Internal consistency, descriptive data and criterion validity the BAFT scores strongly correlated with anxiety and depression
symptoms as measured by the BAI, PSWQ, and DASS-21. As
Table 2 shows that Cronbach’s alpha of the overall BAFT
ranged from .88 (Sample 2) to .93 (Sample 3), with an overall
alpha of .92, 95% CI [.91, .93]. Compared to the BAFT scores in Table 2
Cronbach’s alphas and descriptive data of the full scale across samples
the nonclinical sample of the original study (M = 50.1, SD = 16.9),
scores in Samples 1 (M = 59.99, SD = 18.2) and 2 (M = 58.71, SD = Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
16.7) were slightly higher, whereas scores in Sample 3 were slightly (N = 105) (N = 204) (N = 289)
lower (M = 47.4, SD = 19.9). Participants in Sample 3 showed
α .91 .88 .93
lower scores than participants in Samples 1 and 2 (p<.001). [95%CI] [.89, .94] [.85, .90] [.92, .94]
Table 3 shows that participants with scores above the cutoffs
58.71 47.40
on the BAI, PSWQ, and DASS-21 scored statistically significantly Mean score (SD) 59.99 (18.2)
(16.7) (19.9)
higher on the BAFT than those with scores below these cutoffs.

311
 Francisco J. Ruiz, Paula Odriozola-González and Juan C. Suárez-Falcón

expected, correlations with related constructs were strong (e.g., Regulation factor showed lower correlations with symptomatology
AAQ-II, ASI, and MCQ-30 subscales). Lastly, correlations with and other constructs such as the AAQ-II and ASI.
the FFMQ subscales of Nonjudging and Acting with Awareness
were strong and in the expected direction. Incremental validity
As in Herzberg et al. (2012), the Negative Evaluation and
Emotion Regulation factors of the BAFT showed a somewhat The overall BAFT score showed incremental validity in relation
different pattern of correlations. Specifically, the Emotion to anxiety sensitivity as measured by the ASI, as the correlations
with other relevant measures remained significant at p<.01 even after
Table 3 controlling for it. Specifically, in Sample 1, BAFT scores showed
Mean BAFT scores of participants who scored above and below the cutoffs of significant partial correlations with the AAQ-II (.34), PSWQ (.36),
the BAI (15 points), PSWQ (62), and DASS-21 (23), or who were receiving BAI (.48), Acting with Awareness (-.31), and Nonjudging (-.62).
psychological or psychiatric treatment
In Sample 2, BAFT scores remained significantly correlated with
Sample 2 the AAQ-II (.50), DASS-21 total score (.34), and its Depression,
Sample 1 (N = 105) Sample 3 (N = 289)
(N = 204) Anxiety and Stress subscales (.28, .23, and .35, respectively).
DASS-21 – DASS-21 – Receiving
BAI>15 PSWQ>62
Total>23 Total>23 treatment
Discussion

BAFT 74.29 68.81 69.64 72.39 61.22 The data obtained provide promising evidence that this Spanish
Scores (16.1) (17.8) (14.4) (20.8) (23.19) version of the BAFT is a valid and reliable measure of cognitive
“Clinical” N = 34 N = 16 N = 59 N = 39 N = 19
fusion with anxious thoughts and feelings. Overall, the current
BAFT 52.08 58.52 53.83 43.50 46.43 data are very similar to those obtained by Herzberg et al. (2012).
Scores (14.8) (17.6) (15.5) (16.8) (19.4)
Specifically, the results showed that the BAFT has very good internal
“Non clini- N = 68 N = 86 N = 138 N = 250 N = 270
cal” consistency (overall α = .92), construct validity (correlations were
in the expected direction with anxiety and depression symptoms
Student’s T 6.71*** 2.35* 6.71*** 9.67*** 3.18**
and related constructs), criterion validity (participants receiving
* p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p≤.001 psychological/psychiatric treatment or experiencing mild levels
of anxiety symptoms scored significantly higher on the BAFT),
and incremental validity (BAFT scores were associated with other
Table 4 variables even when controlling for anxiety sensitivity).
Zero-order correlations between the BAFT scores and other relevant self-report The factor structure of the BAFT found in this study differs slightly
measures
from the one obtained by Herzberg et al. (2012). According to the
BAFT – BAFT – parallel analysis, only two correlated factors were extracted from our
BAFT –
Measure S N
total
Negative Emotion overall data. However, these two factors largely overlapped with the
evaluation regulation three factors extracted in the original study. The first factor consisted
1 105 .49** .49** .35**
of twelve elements including all items from the Somatic Concerns
AAQ-II 2 204 .65** .68** .24** and Negative Evaluations subscales plus one item from the Emotion
3 289 .62** .67** .36** Regulation subscale. The second factor was significantly smaller
1 105 .54** .55** .37** and consisted of the remaining four items of the Emotion Regulation
ASI subscale. Thus, our results can be seen as relatively consistent with
2 204 .63** .64** .30**
BAI 1 105 .56** .58** .31*
the data by Herzberg et al. if we take into consideration that the
FFMQ – Observe 1 105 .39** .37** .31**
Somatic Concerns and Negative Evaluation factors worked very
FFMQ – Describe 1 105 -.19 -.20 -.11
similarly in that study in terms of correlations with other constructs,
FFMQ – Act with Awareness 1 105 -.45** -.49** -.21
and that their third factor only explained 6.88% of the variance
FFMQ – Nonjudging 1 105 -.68** -.66** -.55**
(eigenvalue of 1.23). It makes sense, therefore, the combination of
FFMQ – Nonreaction 1 105 -.03 -.06 .06
these two factors into a larger one. We have maintained the label
PSWQ 1 105 .49** .50** .26**
of Negative Evaluation because it seems to better represent this
factor than the label Somatic Concerns, which is more specific.
2 204 .60** .65** .17
DASS-21 – Total Furthermore, similar to the original study, our results suggested the
3 289 .64** .68** .39**
presence of a hierarchical factor structure with two first-order factors
2 204 .53** .58** .14 and a higher factor of general cognitive fusion.
DASS-21 – Depression
3 289 .53** .57** .30**
The Emotion Regulation factor showed generally lower
2 204 .52** .60** .05 correlations with anxious symptomatology and other related
DASS-21 – Anxiety
3 289 .59** .63** .35**
constructs. This is consistent with the results presented by Herzberg
DASS-21 – Stress
2 204 .56** .57** .24** et al. (2012) in their nonclinical sample. Indeed, in view of our
3 289 .64** .66** .43** factor analysis, it could be argued that the Negative Evaluation
MCQ – Positive beliefs 3 289 .22** .21** .19** factor might be used as a reduced 12-item version of the BAFT
MCQ – Negative beliefs 3 289 .63** .64** .44** that excludes fusion from counterproductive emotion regulation
MCQ – Need to control 3 289 .56** .50** .55** strategies. Further empirical research might explore this option.
Some limitations of this study are worth mentioning. First, the
* p<.01; ** p<.001
functioning of the BAFT was tested only in nonclinical samples;

312
 The Spanish version of the Believability of Anxious Feelings and Thoughts Questionnaire
therefore, further research is necessary in clinical samples to
confirm the results obtained in this study. Second, no information
was obtained concerning the diagnosis and the course of therapy
in participants receiving psychological/psychiatric treatment
in Sample 3. Lastly, because the current study is a compilation
of three samples from independent studies, no methodological
rationale guided the selection of the samples and the measures
used to analyze the construct validity of the BAFT. Although this is
a clear limitation, it can also be seen as a virtue because the BAFT
References
Antony, M.M., Bieling, P.J., Cox, B.J., Enns, M.W., & Swinson, R.P.
(1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of
the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) in clinical groups and a
community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 176-181.
Arch, J.J., Wolitzky-Taylor, K.B., Eifert, G.H., & Craske, M.G. (2012).
Longitudinal treatment mediation of traditional cognitive behavioral
therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy for anxiety disorders.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 50, 469-478.
Baer, R.A., Smith, G.T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006).
Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness.
Assessment, 13, 27-45.
Beck, A.T., & Steer, R. (1990). Beck Anxiety Inventory manual. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Bond, F.W., Hayes, S.C., Baer, R.A., Carpenter, K.M., Guenole, N., Orcutt,
H.K., …, Zettle, R.D. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties
of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire - II: A revised measure
of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior
Therapy, 42, 676-688.
Cebolla, A., García-Palacios, A., Soler, J., Guillen, V., Baños, R., & Botella,
C. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Spanish validation of the Five
Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). European Journal of
Psychiatry, 26, 118-126.
Daza, P., Novy, D.M., Stanley, M., & Averill, P. (2002). The Depression
Anxiety Stress Scale-21: Spanish translation and validation with
a Hispanic sample. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 24, 195-205.
Duhacheck, A., & Iacobucci, D. (2004). Alpha’s Standard Error (ASE): An
accurate and Precise Confidence Interval Estimate. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 492-808.
Fonseca-Pedrero, E., Paino, M., Lemos-Giráldez, S., & Muñiz, J. (2010).
Propiedades psicométricas de la Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales-
21 (DASS-21) en universitarios españoles [Psychometric properties of
the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) in Spanish
college students]. Ansiedad y Estrés, 16, 215-226.
Forman, E.M., Chapman, J.E., Herbert, J.D., Goetter, E.M., Yuen, E.K., &
Moitra, E. (2012). Using session-by-session measurement to compare
mechanisms of action for acceptance and commitment therapy and
cognitive therapy. Behavior Therapy, 43, 341-354.
Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hayes, S.C., Luoma, J.B., Bond, F.W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006).
Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1-25.
Hayes, S.C., Strosahl, K.D., & Wilson, K.G. (1999). Acceptance and
commitment therapy. An experiential approach to behavior change.
New York: Guilford Press.
Hayton, J.C., Allen, D.G., & Scarpello, G. (2004). Factor retention
decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis.
Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191-205.
Herzberg, K.N., Sheppard, S.C., Forsyth, J.P., Credé, M., Earleywine,
M., & Eifert, G.H. (2012). The Believability of Anxious Feelings
and Thoughts Questionnaire (BAFT): A psychometric evaluation of
cognitive fusion in a nonclinical and highly anxious community sample.
Psychological Assessment, 24, 877-891.
showed good properties in different contexts and administered in
different forms.
In conclusion, this Spanish version of the BAFT emerges as
a reliable and valid measure of cognitive fusion with anxious
thoughts and feelings. The BAFT may be a useful tool to assess
degrees of cognitive fusion in the context of understanding the
etiology, maintenance, and treatment of anxiety disorders. BAFT
scores might also help clinicians to improve case formulation and
to monitor decreases in cognitive fusion throughout treatment.
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to
fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavior Research Methods,
38, 88-91.
Luciano, C., Valdivia-Salas, S., & Ruiz, F.J. (2012). The self as the context
for rule-governed behavior. In L. McHugh & I. Stewart (Eds.), The
self and perspective taking: Research and applications (pp. 143-160).
Oakland, CA: Context Press.
Meyer, T.J., Miller, M.L., Metzeger, R.L., & Borkovec, T.D. (1990).
Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28, 487-495.
Muñiz, J., & Hambleton, R.K. (1996). Directrices para la traducción y
adaptación de los tests [Guidelines for translating and adapting tests].
Papeles del Psicólogo, 66, 63-70.
Odriozola-González, P. (2011). El papel del pensamiento mágico en las
alucinaciones y el trastorno obsesivo compulsivo. Comparación entre grupos
clínicos y no clínicos [The role of magical thinking in hallucinations and
obsessive-compulsive disorder. Comparison between clinical and nonclinical
groups] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oviedo, Spain.
Osborne, J.W. & Fitzpatrick, D.C. (2012). Replication analysis in
exploratory factor analysis: What it is and why it makes your analysis
better. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17, 1-8.
Peterson, R.A., & Reiss, R.J. (1992). Anxiety Sensitivity Index manual (2nd
ed). Worthington, OH: International Diagnostic Systems.
Ruiz, F.J. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy versus traditional
cognitive behavioral therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of
current empirical evidence. International Journal of Psychology and
Psychological Therapy, 12, 333-357.
Ruiz, F.J., Langer, A.I., Luciano, C., Cangas, A.J., & Beltrán, I. (2013).
Measuring experiential avoidance and psychological inflexibility:
The Spanish translation of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire.
Psicothema, 25, 123-129.
Sandín, B., Chorot, P., & McNally, R.J. (2001). Anxiety Sensitivity Index:
Normative data and its differentiation from trait anxiety. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 39, 213-219.
Sandín, B., Chorot, P., Valiente, R.M., & Lostao, L. (2009). Validación
española del cuestionario de preocupación PSWQ: estructura factorial
y propiedades psicométricas [Spanish validation of the PSWQ worry
questionnaire: Factor structure and psychometric properties]. Revista
de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica, 14, 107-122.
Sanz, J., & Navarro, M.E. (2003). Propiedades psicométricas de una versión
española del Inventario de Ansiedad de Beck (BAI) en estudiantes
universitarios [Psychometric properties of a Spanish version of the
Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) in undergraduate students]. Ansiedad y
Estrés, 9, 59-84.
Schmid, J., & Leiman, J.N. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor
solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53-61.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Wells, A., & Cartwright-Hatton, S. (2004). A short form of the
Metacognitions Questionnaire: Properties of the MCQ-30. Behavior
Research and Therapy, 42, 385-396.
Wolf, H.G., & Preising, K. (2005). Exploring item and higher order factor
structure with the Schmid-Leiman solution: Syntax codes for SPSS and
SAS. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 48-58.
313